DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. With reference to claim 1 recites the limitation "the composite graphic flows" and “one or more of the composite graphic flows” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim recites a composite graphic flow, however fails to define multiple graphic flows as recited. Claims 3-8 and 13-14 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauty et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2010/0289671; hereinafter Hauty) in view of Chu et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0179588; hereinafter Chu).
With reference to claim 1, Hauty discloses a display system in an aircraft cockpit (see paragraphs 4, 8, 39; Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a plurality of display surfaces (310), each display surface receiving a composite graphic flow comprising a combination of images, from which it extracts one or more of the images and displays the one or more extracted images on that display surface (310) (see paragraph 43-44; Fig. 3);
a processor (330) hosting a plurality of applications, each application running on the processor and generating images for display on one or more of said display surfaces (see paragraphs 40, 50; Fig. 3-4);
a graphic generation module (320) that receives and combines inputs from said processor (330), generates the composite graphic flows, and transmits the composite graphic flows to said display surfaces (310) in a normal mode of operation (see paragraphs 43, 53; Figs. 3, 5); and
a device (560) receiving one or more of the composite graphic flows, replicating each received composite graphic flow into at least two identical composite graphic flows (see paragraph 58; Figs. 3, 5), and transmitting the identical composite graphic flows to said at least two auxiliary display surfaces (see paragraphs 43, 46, 58; Figs. 3, 5).
While Hauty discloses the usage of a plurality of display surfaces, there fails to be specific disclosure of a first and two auxiliary display surfaces operating in a normal mode and a degraded mode as recited.
Chu discloses an alternative display option for vehicular information to the user (see abstract), wherein the display system comprises a main display surface (104) and at least two auxiliary display surfaces (122, 128) (see paragraph 25; Fig. 1B); a graphic generation module (400) that receives and combines inputs from said processor (412) (see paragraph 42; Fig. 4), generates the graphic flow and transmits the graphic flow to said main display surface (104) and to one of said auxiliary surfaces (112) in a normal mode of operation (see paragraph 43; Fig. 4), and to said main display surface (104) and to a passive splitter device (600) in a degraded mode of operation (see paragraph 43, 46; Fig. 6);
the passive splitter device (600) receiving one or more of the graphic flows from said graphic generation module (400) in the degraded mode of operation, replicating each received graphic flow into at least two identical graphic flows, and transmitting the identical graphic flows to said at least two auxiliary display surfaces (122, 128) (see paragraph 43).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a degraded mode of display of a main display and auxiliary displays similar to that which is taught by Chu to be carried out in a system similar to that which is taught by Hauty to thereby use alternate displays to provide failure of the vehicle to the operator (see Chu; paragraphs 5, 10).
With reference to claim 5, Hauty and Chu disclose a display system according to claim 1, wherein Hauty further discloses that said graphic generation module (320) generates a simple graphic flow comprising images from one or more applications for display on a single display surface (in teaching one video flow from at least one video input; see paragraphs 43-44; Fig. 3).
With reference to claim 6, Hauty and Chu disclose a display system according to claim 1, wherein Hauty further discloses wherein each display surface adapts, on receipt of the composite graphic flow, the images corresponding to that display surface, using configuration parameters (see paragraph 58).
With reference to claim 7, Hauty and Chu disclose a display system according to claim 1, wherein Hauty further discloses that the system further comprising an acquirer (570) acquiring each command exerted in relation to each display surface and transmitting the command to said processor, wherein said processor processes each command acquired by said acquirer (570), as a function of the display surface that corresponds to the command (see paragraphs 50, 60-61).
With reference to claim 8, Hauty and Chu disclose a display system according to claim 7, wherein Hauty further discloses wherein said processor processes each command acquired by said acquirer (570) according to a reference frame corresponding to the display surface that corresponds to the command (see paragraphs 50, 60-61).
With reference to claim 13, Hauty and Chu disclose a display system according to claim 1, wherein Hauty further discloses wherein the graphic generation module (320) is configured to generate the composite graphic flow from images taken from one or more applications hosted by the processing module (see paragraphs 43-44; Fig. 3).
With reference to claim 14, Hauty and Chu disclose a display system according to claim 1, wherein Hauty further wherein the composite graphic flow is a stream comprising images to be displayed on display surfaces (310) (see paragraphs 40, 43-44).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauty and Chu as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Noh et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0093034; hereinafter Noh).
With reference to claim 4, Hauty and Chu discloses a display system according to claim 3, and discloses a splitter device as explained, however fails to specifically disclose an optical splitter.
Noh discloses an image processor for a video wall including a plurality of displays (180), wherein the processor includes a splitter device comprises an optical splitter (160) (see paragraphs 74).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to allow usage of an optical splitter similar to that which is taught by Noh to be carried out in a system similar to that which is taught by Hauty and Chu to thereby divide an input image to a plurality of images to be displayed (see Noh, paragraph 36).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urbanec et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2023/0211894; hereinafter Urbanec) in view of Rettig et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2014/0253573; herein Rettig).
With reference to claim 12, Urbanec discloses a method of display in an in an aircraft cockpit (100) (see paragraphs 32, 49-52; Fig. 1), comprising:
generating images to be displayed on one or more of said display surfaces (202-208) by one or more applications (see paragraphs 25, 33, 42; Fig. 1-2); and
generating a graphic flow comprising images from one or more applications for display on different ones of said display surfaces (202-208) (in teaching displaying alert information on both pilot and copilot displays; see paragraph 25; Fig. 2, 5-6),
dividing the graphic flow into at least two identical graphic flows (in teaching usage of any type of image generation device for displaying alert information on both pilot and copilot displays; see paragraphs 25-26, 42, 44; Fig. 2).
While Urbanec discloses a processor and dividing identical images to be received by different display devices, there fails to be specific disclosure of a passively dividing the graphic flow as recited device as recited.
Rettig discloses a graphics processing apparatus (1) for processing image data which can be displayed on display devices (16a, b) as graphic output of applications (see abstract; paragraphs 60-63; Figs. 1, 5) comprising: passively dividing the graphic flow into at least two graphic flows (see paragraph 91; Fig. 5); receiving each graphic flow by each display surface (see paragraphs 42, 44, 91); and extracting images to be displayed on the corresponding display surface (16a-b) (see paragraphs 42, 44, 65-66, 91; Figs. 1, 5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a graphics processing apparatus having a splitter as recited by Rettig to be carried out in a system similar to that which is taught by Urbanec to thereby provide a graphics processor having a higher level of performance when processing multiple applications (see Rettig; paragraph 67).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GUNN et al. (US10,584,979) discloses a flight management system onboard an aircraft, wherein the system comprises a cockpit graphical display system for displaying flight information to the cockpit on a plurality of display devices (see column 9, line 60-column 11, line 12, line 63-column 12, line 40; Figs. 1-3).
AKIBA (US2024/0169886) discloses a display system including a processing device that transmit image data to a circuit device, wherein the circuit device splits the image into a first and second image to be received by a first and second display respectively (see paragraphs 30-28; Figs. 1-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-8, and 13-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. No arguments are presented with reference to claim 12 as previously presented. Therefore, rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALECIA DIANE ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-1595. The examiner can normally be reached M0n.-Fri. 7:00am-3:00am.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADE/Examiner, Art Unit 2625
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights